Judgment : (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lawande, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for the intervenors. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 26/03/2012 passed by respondent no.2 under Rule 33 of The Goa Education Rules, 1986 ('the Rules' for short) by which the application dated 26/09/2011 filed by the petitioners for closure of Higher Secondary School, has been rejected. 4. Petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Order dated 29/08/1962 and petitioner no.2 is the Principal of Smt. Parvatibai Chowgule College of Arts and Science. The petitioners sought approval of respondent no.2 for closure of Higher Secondary School in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules by communication dated 26/09/2011. Thereafter, by another communication dated 31/10/2011 addressed to respondent no.2, the petitioners sought to give justification for closure of Higher Secondary School. No decision was taken by respondent no.2 for quite sometime. By order dated 26/03/2012, respondent no.2 refused to grant approval to the petitioners. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.2 while rejecting the approval for closure of Higher Secondary School has taken into consideration the representation made by the teachers without the same being put to the notice of the petitioners and as such, the impugned order passed, is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Lotlikar further submitted that several grounds on which the petitioners sought to justify closure of Higher Secondary School, have not been considered by the Director/ respondent no.2 and in any case, the petitioners are entitled to give a say on the representation made by the teachers serving in Higher Secondary School. 6. Per contra, Mr. Lawande, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that all the grounds on which the approval was sought, have been considered by respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 has rightly refused to grant approval for closure of Higher Secondary School. 7. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenors supported the impugned order. 8. Lawande, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that all the grounds on which the approval was sought, have been considered by respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 has rightly refused to grant approval for closure of Higher Secondary School. 7. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenors supported the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 deserves to be quashed and set aside on a short ground. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that respondent no.2, while rejecting the approval, has taken into consideration the representation made by the teachers and has observed that the action of the petitioners has created a sort of anxiety and fear in the mind of the teachers who have rendered selfless services for so many years with determination and dedication for the upliftment of quality of education. According to Mr. Lawande, all the teachers serving in Higher Secondary School had made a common representation which has been considered by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 having not put the petitioners to notice about the representation made by the teachers and having relied upon the representation made by the teachers, the impugned order passed taking into consideration the said representation without putting the same to the notice of the petitioners, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26/03/2012 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 shall give a copy of the representation made by the teachers to the petitioners within a period of one week. The petitioners shall submit their say, if any on the said representation within a period of one week thereafter. In addition to dealing with the representation of the teachers of Higher Secondary School, the petitioners are permitted to file additional representation to respondent no.2 within a period of one week. 10. Respondent no.2 shall pass a fresh order in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules after considering the application dated 26/09/2011, justification dated 31/10/2011 submitted by the petitioners, representation made by the teachers, say of the petitioners, if any, on the representation of teachers and additional representation of the petitioners, within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law. 11. 11. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 12. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.